This really bothers me:
The Obama administration is holding out for an extension of unemployment assistance and of a variety of expiring tax breaks for low-wage and middle-income workers as part of a deal with Congressional Republicans to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts.
But it is unclear how much leverage the White House has in the tax negotiations, given the drubbing Democrats took in the midterm elections, the tight Congressional calendar and a threat by Senate Republicans to block any legislation until the tax fight is resolved.
If you let the Bush era tax cuts continue for the richest of the rich, you are basically ceding the argument to Republicans. I can understand wanting to do everything you can to get unemployment benefits extended, but Democrats just can not afford to lose this argument. For starters, they are right. The Bush tax cuts for the rich did nothing to create job growth, did nothing for the economy, and did nothing but increase the deficit. Giving in on the tax cuts for the rich would allow the Republicans to claim that for the past decade, every time this argument was had, they were right. It would change the dynamic for every negotiation in the future, because it would mean that whenever we discuss the deficit, tax cuts would be off the table because it is a “fact” that tax cuts create jobs.
Dems just can not cave on this issue. This goes beyond just a short term political loss, and goes to core differences between the parties.
General Stuck
Really?, a one or two year extension to get help for the unemployed, is a short term political loss. Only in the stale air of the left wing blogosphere. Obama has closed the door on anything permanent. Now that would have been an ideological sellout. Never figured you for a pony wrangler. But here it is.
Zifnab
It would be better to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. But Obama made a promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, and by God this is the hill he’s ready to die on.
Nevermind the fact that half of America already thinks he raised all their taxes.
cleek
betcha they can!
me
Don’t hold your breath.
eyepaddle
They can’t cave, but they will.
With apologies to Mistermix–qantas never crashes, Dems ALWAYS cave.
The federal pay freeze nonsense pretty much ended any hope I have on this issue.
But of course, Pelosi’s craftiness in the house speaks against my argument….why do the Dems always have to do this to me? ! ? ! ?
Dollared
JC, I would be more Thrilled if I didn’t have to worry about exactly that.
And if Obama was out there demonizing some Republicans for trashing millions of loyal, hardworking Americans to preserve David Gregory’s tax breaks.
Balconesfault
I’m impressed that Nancy managed to get even Steny Hoyer onboard with pushing through the vote for the middle class tax cut dislinked from rewarding the wealthy.
If Obama
capitulatescompromises her and Steny’s efforts away here … I’m not sure what trust there’s going to be between the House Dems and the President from here out on economic issues. Nancy might be fighting an Obama/Boehner axis from here out.danimal
I’m sick of the meme that Dems don’t have leverage. The GOP congressional delegation will sell their own mothers to retain the Bush tax rates. They can not fail and escape unscathed. The tea party will primary every last one of them if they don’t deliver. The corporate puppeteers will deliver the kill shot on the survivors. They are DESPERATE, while we can walk away.
This isn’t policy for them, it’s money and ideology. Lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. They need this; it’s their only real shot.
Drive a hard bargain or just say no and walk away.
J
Not quite right to say the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did nothing but increase the deficit. They also helped exacerbate the already pronounced tendency toward inequality in our society, by concentrating more wealth, more privilege and more power in the hands of the few. And though one wouldn’t have thought it was possible, they strengthened the already bloated sense of entitlement cultivated by our pampered, cosseted ruling class. The whining of the haves about the prospect of a slight increase to tax rates which by historical and comparative standards remain remarkably low has reached a crescendo. These are, of course, more reasons to oppose extending the cuts.
WyldPirate
It’s strong eleventy-diminsional chess mojo, JC. The Rethugs are on the run.
Rethugs–“If we cut the all tax rates to zero, government revenues will go up and we’ll all live on the “Big Rock candy Mountain”.”
Obama–“sounds like an excellent plan. Can I get you to do it if I propose that we ban abortions?”
Obotz–“damn. President Obama has mad negotiating skillz. He has the republicans on the run.
JC–“Damn, what is wrong with President Obama? He’s giving away the farm!”
Obots—“JC quit being mean to President
Black JesusObama. He walks on water and gives me cause for my daily whine.”patrick II
@J:
Well said. Although according to internet traditions, I think I am supposed to say “This”.
Balconesfault
@J: They also helped exacerbate the already pronounced tendency toward inequality in our society, by concentrating more wealth, more privilege and more power in the hands of the few.
Not to mention feeding the Wall Street ca sino.
Corner Stone
@danimal:
Who is desperate? President Obama and his WH have proclaimed for weeks now that their TOP PRIORITY is the MC tax rates.
He has boxed himself into this. If they all expire it will be the LARGEST TAX HIKE on the MC EVER! Plus, it will be that OBAMA is irrelevant, etc.
Dennis SGMM
It might not be the best strategy to reward GOP obstructionism right off the bat. They might just take that as a signal to pull the same stunt for each and every item on their agenda.
New Yorker
Ideally, but I think it’s far more important to keep unemployment benefits flowing. Not sure how one is supposed to keep that going when dealing with hostage-taking sociopaths like the GOP.
I suppose Obama could point out how letting tax cuts expire will help trim the deficit…..
tom is the bom
What we are learning is that this is Evan Bayh’s party. Dems either never wanted to do the right thing, or were too weak to do it. There is no other explanation.
Corner Stone
It gives me the heebies but I agree completely. This is the argument I have been making for months now.
And not only on tax cuts but on a lot of the frames we have seen accepted. It’s very damaging both short term and longer term.
MBunge
I love how this discussion virtually never dwells on what raising taxes on all Americans, not just the rich, will do in this economic environment, not to mention what it would do politically to the Democrats. And if you think it would be easy to win an argument where two years from now the Republicans can say “We wanted to cut everyone’s taxes, the Democrats didn’t”, you’re fooling yourself.
Now, if the Dems had been smart enough to have this debate and vote BEFORE the 2010 midterms, it might have been different. But I don’t think that particular stupidity can be laid at Obama’s feet.
Mike
ruemara
If 5 Dems cave, then they all cave by default. If we need 1 Republican vote, then they all cave by default. WTF man, do you really need to have process explained-again? I’m not sure anyone in the party will risk the optics of allowing the tax cut to fail and I doubt the Obama administration is risk tolerant enough to allow this all to fail, then step up with an “Obama Tax Cut” plan to be trumpeted all over the media. It’s stupidity all over.
@WyldPirate:
For a non-bigot, you sure like slinging around the black jesus trope, no matter how fucking offensive it is to black people. Do you ever get tired of being confused for a pig ignorant bigot on the internets?
WyldPirate
@General Stuck:
Bwahahaha. Tell that to the Republican controlled house and Senate and, perhaps, President Snow Snooki Mooselini in 2012,Stuck.
Hey, I’m going to be going through NM soon. Can you introduce me to your dealer? I wanna get some of that Kind bud you’re puffin’ on.
Nick
@Dollared:
You mean like he was in September and October? I love how people forgot about this, just like I said they would
El Cid
The main way to determine if any other approach by Obama is impossible is to watch whether or not Obama decides to argue or press for one way or another.
Whichever way he decides, it means he is correct and this was the only path forward.
To arrive at any other conclusion which differed from the approach Obama decides upon is unrealistic and basically represents the view of an immature, hostile Firebagger.
[It would also represent a failure of the liberals to support the President fully and represents an undercutting of his agenda.]
JMG
John, it’s sweet you think there are core differences between the two parties on taxing the rich. It is OBVIOUS that the Democrats cannot raise taxes on the rich without splitting the so-called “moderates” away from the party. It’s just the sort of issue that’d turn Ben Nelson Republican, and Claire McCaskill and about four other Senators.
Just Some Fuckhead
Can I make a helpful suggestion? Just substitute the word “Dems” or “Democrats” or “Harry Reid” where you would otherwise be tempted to use “Obama” or “This Administration” or “The White House”. It gets us to the same place and avoids upsetting the folks who are overly invested in, ya know, whatever.
xephyr
As usual dems have the moral high ground, the sound rationale… and the backbone deficit.
WyldPirate
@Zifnab:
It’s those mad White House communication skills at work, Zifnab.
Comrade Dread
Oh, come now. I doubt you’re that naive. Extending these by two years, will treat us all to another round of, “They’re trying to pass the biggest tax increase on you EVAR!!!!”
Followed by more capitulation until we get a GOP congress again and they make it permanent.
Nick
@MBunge:
I said before the election that the reason Democrats have no leverage is the only way you have leverage in a democracy in convincing the other side that they could lose elections if they don’t compromise.
Republicans will never lose elections for not compromising, Democrats always will. It’s not some fault of bad negotiating skills or bad messaging, it’s simple the fact that half the country would still vote for Republicans if they raped them with a double-sided dildo. That makes them invincible.
Kryptik
Preach, brother.
But fucking seriously, the last two years have been more demoralizing than the whole of Bush’s two terms. I mean…apparently, this really is the limit of what Democrats can ever do in this country now, and we’re still blamed for being ‘extreme’ and ‘hyperpartisans’. This country really fucking hates Democrats and Liberals more than it wants to actually get shit done and fixed.
I’ve really lost a whole lot of love for this country, because I’m convinced that this country hates me four times over, for looking like a ‘Dirty Messican’, for looking like a ‘Moooslim’, for questioning the untouchable Christianity (which is as far removed from actual Christianity as is possible), and for being one of those dirty hippie America-hating Libbies.
And I’ve given up any hope that anything’s gonna get fucking fixed ever. We are institutionally fucked, and it’s gonna take a decade at the very least to even get any fucking leeway at all.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
He needs to take a hint from the Rethugs and become a broken record on the matter. The fucking “too cool for school, aloof and above it all” approach i8sn’t getting it done.
He needs to step up his game and quit stepping on his dick.
Judas Escargot
@MBunge:
I love how this discussion virtually never dwells on what raising taxes on all Americans, not just the rich, will do in this economic environment, not to mention what it would do politically to the Democrats
Adding an additional $700 billion to the deficit using a mechanism that’s been demonstrated to not increase demand very much isn’t a very smart thing to do in this economic environment, either.
Nick
@Comrade Dread:
Not if they already made middle class cuts permanent. Republicans will have a harder time arguing to people that Obama wants to raise taxes on rich people.
Right now, part of what’s helping the Republicans is the fact that taxes will go up on EVERYBODY once they expire. IF they extend tax cuts on the rich for two years, they only go up when they expire.
WyldPirate
@Kryptik:
I feel your pain, Kryptik. I really do, but I think you are wrong.
We are institutionally fucked, but it is going to take the equivalent of a societal “Blue screen of Death” and a complete OS system reinstallation to get us out of this mess,
Nick
@WyldPirate:
Funny, because he’s been making the same argument from Labor Day right up through yesterday, and yet we’re too busy having discussions about whether or not he’ll cave in the end.
General Stuck
@Comrade Dread:
You are no where near smart enough to read the future.
pattonbt
I am pretty much in complete agreement with this sentiment. The Dems simply can not lose this argument and extend the cuts, not just because it’s fiscally prudent to let them expire, but because it means they lose all arguments going forward. If they can not stand up for fiscal sanity, then what the hell?
This is really, really bad governance and weakens the fiscal structure of the government to perform necessary tasks. And by giving it away they are basically saying, “well, maybe cutting taxes for no other reason than to cut taxes is OK”.
Losing this argument adds credence to the bullshit voodoo economics of trickle down theory which I think the last 30 some odd years of results have shown to be fraudulent and detrimental to a properly regulated and functioning economy.
And by giving in on this it means the R’s get everything they want for a few damned crumbs thrown the D’s way.
This is lose-lose-lose for the D’s.
WyldPirate
@Judas Escargot:
What? That’s heresy! What about the burgeoning prosperity and great job creation of the last ten years that made the US government coffers overflow due to the investment of our “job creating” betters and small business owners? This was all due to the certainity and prosperity brought about by the Bush tax cuts.
James E. Powell
If you let the Bush era tax cuts continue for the richest of the rich, you are basically ceding the argument to Republicans.
Ceding the argument to the Republicans has been SOP for the Obama administration. I really am curious why that has been so. It was certainly not a necessity. It did not produce anything of value. It did enrage or demoralize a large number of Obama’s supporters. So, geniuses of the Balloon Juice blog, why does he do it?
lacp
I really don’t see any option other than a compromise of some kind. However the White House and Congressional Democrats arrived at this place, whether by accident, design, or stupidity, they’re never going to get Republicans to agree to extend UI or anything else in the social safety net without coughing up a fat-cat tax-cut hairball.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
Obama has clearly not been making the same argument during that time.
pattonbt
@WyldPirate:
Dude, the black jesus strikethrough thing is really annoying. Makes you look like a loon and an uneducated dick..
Just saying.
schrodinger's cat
Call me a firebagger if you will but I think Obama has been clueless about the economy, he has bought into the framing of the deficit hawks or may be it is because of his years at the University of Chicago where much of the intellectual justification of this pernicious theory (NeoClassical Economics of rational agents who have perfect foresight) comes from. I am so frustrated. Obama needs to hire someone like Krugman.
ETA: Still an Obot and waiting with increasing frustration to see if Obama changes his tune on matters, economic.
Brachiator
Bingo.
The Obama Administration and the Democrats should let the Bush tax cuts expire for tactical reasons.
They need to get all remaining Bush era stuff off the table. Even if they “compromise” and extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 or 3 years, it will still provide the Republicans with a club to bang the Democrats with through the next election cycle.
If they let the Bush tax cuts expire, it will now be up to the Republicans to revive them again from scratch. If the Democrats “compromise” and extend them for any period of time, the Republicans will continue to argue that they be made permanent.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will force the Republicans to explicitly vote to fuck over the middle class.
Obama needs to clear away the Bush so that he can put forth his own economic agenda.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will put the onus on the Republicans to explain, justify, rationalize, scramble, and ultimately negotiate.
I got no problem with bi-partisanship, but Obama and the Democrats need to go on offensive, and to explicitly say that the country needs a better class of Republicans that they can do business with.
The Republicans have purged moderates and embraced the Tea Party. The Democrats need to emphasize that the only people left in the Republican tent are those who have either bad ideas or no ideas.
The Democrats need to be able to say to Republicans “go to your home districts during the Christmas holidays and explain to your middle class constituents exactly why you decided to side with the ultra rich.”
But unfortunately, the Democrats ain’t this smart.
MBunge
@Judas Escargot: Hey, if Obama decides the long term fiscal health of the country is more important than short term econcomic pain and the possible political anihilation of the Democratic Party in 2012, that would actually confirm my respect for him as a serious adult who loves his country. I suspect that wouldn’t be the universal reaction, however. I think that 6 months after letting the tax cuts expire, and I believe even the Krug-monster thinks raising middle class taxes in this environment would be for the economy, Obama would not only get no credit for what he did but every lefty bitching about him now would be bitching even louder then.
Mike
Nick
@pattonbt:
Even if they don’t agree to extend the cuts, they probably still have lost the argument. If there were no electoral consequences of letting the tax cuts expire, they’d let them expire.
Corner Stone
@James E. Powell:
Because he HAS to! Don’t you get it? When he does that he isn’t really doing that, he’s arglebargle mcaaaarrrgghh!!
General Stuck
let the unemployed eat cake
WyldPirate
@Nick:
It was “September and October” a few minutes ago.
His message isn’t working and all indications are that he is going to cave on one of his core fucking campaign issues.
The rethugs will get maximum benefit if they get the extension for two years. They will blame Obama for not cutting the deficit. they will crow about their win. then, in 2012 when they take the senate, they will extend the cuts–if not reduce taxes even more.
But keep on clapping, Nick. Your hands have obviously not gotten sore yet.
Nick
@Brachiator:
Did you ever hear the story of Geraldine Ferraro with the union workers in Illinois?
their middle class constituents don’t care. They’ll vote for them anyway. Now the middle class constituents of Democrats on the other hand will say “do whatever you can do to keep my taxes down, or we’re voting Republican next time”
MBunge
@Brachiator: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will force the Republicans to explicitly vote to fuck over the middle class.
I don’t understand this logic. If the Bush tax cuts expire, Repubs go back to saying “We want to cut everybody’s taxes” while Dems can only respond by saying “We want to balance the budget” or at best “We want to cut middle class taxes”. I fail to see how that’s a decisive winner for the Dems or loser for the GOP.
Mike
WyldPirate
@Balconesfault:
Triangulation II Redux
numbskull
@General Stuck: And so we see that goal posts have been firmly planted in the band section.
Next up: Goal posts moved to the next county.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
I’m aware his message isn’t working. What I’m saying is it’s not because he’s not trying
When you say “I’d be ok with giving in if he’d only fight,” how did you do it while keeping a straight face?
Andrew
I don’t know. You’re basically saying you’d rather gamble on a political pissing contest instead of taking a deal that allows unemployment insurance to be extended, that allows $100 bil. in fiscal stimulus, and possibly lifts the debt ceiling.
Now, we may not get that. I’d like to see what the final package is.
But while I think the WH is clueless about how politically weak they’re looking, I do think this is a much less cut-and-dry situation than a lot of liberals are arguing it is. Yes, Obama could play a game of chicken, but with very real consequences for most Americans.
I worry that on some level the desire to angrily confront the Republicans is crowding out some common sense. Again, to float my pet theory: this is a delayed reaction to the midterms (the initial reaction to which was fairly subdued).
Joe Beese
May I ask, Mr. Cole, what your contingency plan is if Obama does in fact “cave” on making Bush’s tax policy effectively permanent – as I assure you he will? (The irony quotes because, of course, that has been his intention from the very beginning.)
How many times does someone have to kick you in the balls before you decide that they don’t really like you after all?
Meanwhile, the top-rated diary over at the Great Orange Satan is by a longtime defender of Obama who has finally renounced him over his active protection of Bush-era torturers.
Still find that story of no interest? The President being an accomplice after the fact in the brutal torture of your fellow human beings is still a “disappointment” you’re prepared to accept?
General Stuck
@numbskull:
There are no goalposts, numbskull. I will gladly eat crow for being wrong about my prediction that all the cuts will expire, if it means some relief for the unemployed. Unfortunately for them, i fear my prediction might turn out to be correct.
Hal
It’s not as though Obama and the Dems can’t get out there and push their own message. Republicans count on the narrative being that Obama “raised” taxes, but Obama can counter this himself as much as he wants to.
I get the argument about allowing benefits to expire. I realize people think the MSM will simply parrot whatever Republicans say and do as gospel, but the Dems can counter this through effort.
If it was impossible, Obama would have never one the election in the first place.
eemom
I fervently hope that they — and it really is a collective they at this point, the Senate Democrats AND the WH — don’t cave, and let all the tax cuts expire rather than give in to the unspeakable evil that is the republican party.
I would rather all the tax cuts expire anyway. But trying to keep the MC ones can’t be trivialized because Obama promised that. But I’d rather see him “break” that promise than give in.
I’d rather they not give in even if it means unemployment extension and everything else the fuckwads are holding hostage remain hostages.
I’d rather they stick to their guns, call the bluff of the scumbags and then TELL THE WORLD that the republicans chose to fuck over the MC and the unemployed rather than make their gazillionaire whoremasters pay a dollar more in taxes.
I want those things as much as the rest of y’all. But none of those choices is as simple for the people who actually have to make them as it is for any of us.
There are, on the other hand, a lot of awfully simple minds on this blog.
General Stuck
@eemom:
Riverdaughter grade
Brachiator
@MBunge:
RE: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will force the Republicans to explicitly vote to fuck over the middle class.
No. The Democrats always muddy their own freakin message, and nobody understands how marginal tax rates work.
If Congress passes “middle class tax cuts,” those making over $250,000 get some tax relief as well. They just don’t huge ass tax breaks.
Once again, thanks to Mother Jones and other sites, a picture is worth a thousand words.
@Nick:
If the Democrats had half a brain, they can clearly lay the blame where it belongs, on the Republicans. They were able to do this to some degree when they won in 2008.
They need to find their mojo again.
danimal
@MBunge: I’ll concede that restoring the Clinton rates will cost the jobs that were created as a result of the Bush tax
cutdeferrals.That would be approximately zero. Does anyone else remember the thriving, job-creating stimulative effects of the Bush tax rates on the 2001-2008 economy? Me neither.
eemom
@General Stuck:
hey General. A new day dawns and here we are again.
Tell me, why IS that?
FlipYrWhig
You do know that “not caving on this issue” results in all tax rates resetting, including on dollars $1-$250K, which will be trumpeted as “biggest tax increase EVAR,” right? Last night I was talking to Dollared and scar and they said what they would want to see was Obama letting that happen, then barnstorming in support of the tax policy he wants. Every time the Republican House would bring up an across-the-board tax cut, they said, he should veto it as disdainfully as possible.
I thought that would certainly leave Obama looking “strong,” as everyone wants, but also leave him presiding over “the biggest tax increase in American history” (whatever the facts were) in the midst of a bleak economic climate.
Do you think this Stalwart Progressive Obama (let’s assume that’s the role he’d play) could come out from that looking good?
I’m dubious.
WyldPirate
@pattonbt:
I’m not uneducated, but I’m sure some think I’m a dick. The latter doesn’t bother me and on the former, well, all of us can always stand to learn something new. .
My use of “Black Jesus” is meant to mock certain people on here who defend every single fuck-up Obama makes. They see him as infallible as in the fundamentalist Xtian sense of “The Bible is the inerrant word of God/Father/Son/Holy Spirit”. It is a metaphor for the mindless, unquestioning, lemming-like allegiance some show and who also want to shut down any criticism of Obama.
So if you think I’m a dick for using it, fine. It’s a free country and all that. But because I use that term doesn’t mean that I’m racist as some here love to imply.
kindness
I worked to help get Obama elected. At this point I can honestly say if his ‘leadership’ doesn’t change (in the next two weeks) I won’t be supporting his re-election in 2012. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for a dick head like Ralph Nader. It means I will vote for someone else in the primary. If it comes down to Obama winning the Democratic nomination, I will hold my nose & vote for him against what ever troglodite the Republicans put up there (all the leaders of the repubs are morphological throwbacks).
No, I’m not gonna lay down & let the douchebags on the right roll over me. I’ll fight. Nancy Pelosi is about the only one who has any balls at this point.
Demon3d
John, I keep coming back here every once in a while to see if you are finally ready to move from “someone who can be fooled all the time” to “someone who can only be fooled some of the time.” I sense you are getting there, slowly but surely. After all, its been two years now of “look forward, not backward,” “we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good(?),” “his heart’s in the right place, but the Republicans are just so mean . . .,” etc.
Just look at yourself in the mirror and admit that you were duped. It’s not that hard, really, and you will not only feel better about yourself, but you will also free yourself (after an appropriate period of mourning) to help in what will certainly be a long and disheartening fight to take our country back from the forces of darkness.
If it helps, just thinking about the headlines of the last week or so. Your prince and savior wants to freeze federal salaries and to turn social security into a welfare system (and cut its benefits) to address the all-important deficit, but is willing (eager?) to “consider” adding $700 million to the all-important deficit so that the wealthy can have their tax cuts. How long can you continue to think this is “naivete” or “poor negotiation strategy,” rather than purposeful action?
Demon3d
John, I keep coming back here every once in a while to see if you are finally ready to move from “someone who can be fooled all the time” to “someone who can only be fooled some of the time.” I sense you are getting there, slowly but surely. After all, its been two years now of “look forward, not backward,” “we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good(?),” “his heart’s in the right place, but the Republicans are just so mean . . .,” etc.
Just look at yourself in the mirror and admit that you were duped. It’s not that hard, really, and you will not only feel better about yourself, but you will also free yourself (after an appropriate period of mourning) to help in what will certainly be a long and disheartening fight to take our country back from the forces of darkness.
If it helps, just keep thinking about the headlines of the last week or so. Your prince and savior wants to freeze federal salaries and to turn social security into a welfare system (and cut its benefits) to address the all-important deficit, but is willing (eager?) to “consider” adding $700 million to the all-important deficit so that the wealthy can have their tax cuts. How long can you continue to think this is “naivete” or “poor negotiation strategy,” rather than purposeful action?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I’m going to have to agree with Stuck on this one. Until we have some semblance of a stable economy, it will be far worse on the economy to let unemployment benefits expire than to extend those tax cuts.
What needs to start happening soon, is a discussion by lots of us on the left about how we’re going to have to pay for this when things turn around.
Brachiator
@eemom:
There are few things as sadly comical as watching people “complicate” themselves into a defeat, which the Democrats are desperately trying to do.
The Republicans have somehow decided that they have won a reverse mandate as a result of the mid-term elections, even though they never cried uncle about the 2008 election. They have declared that their “victory” means that the freakin president of the freaking United States is supposed to do what they want. They have openly declared that they have a right to decide the Democrat’s Congressional leadership by calling for Nancy Pelosi’s ouster as minority leader. You even have Sarah Palin pretending to be Action Barbie Elder Stateswoman on the basis of losing the 2008 elections and quitting as Alaska governor.
And yet, the Democrats want to act as though they have hard choices to make?
Their main decision should be which Republican to bitchslap first.
kindness
@WyldPirate: Yea but saying Black Jesus still makes you sound like a racist dick.
Just sayin’.
Jc
Stuck,
Relief for the unemployed for three months? Then back to same?
For that you will give up on a fundamental difference between the two parties, cede the fundamental financial irresponsibility argument to the republicans, retroactively bless the bush tax cuts, which deviously elimated the surplus that Clinton built up?
No, no, no.
The administration cannot cede this. With a majority of senators for 2012 up for reelection being democrats, with the unemployment rate going to be over 8%, there will be nothing “temporary” about this, as no one is going to run on a tax increase in 2012.
You Don't Say
@kindness: I love Nancy as much as the next gal or guy, but where were her, uh, balls *before* the mid-term elections, when the House coulda held the tax vote?
Everyone is fallible.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
I don’t recall ever saying that. I haven’t had the perception that he ever has fought. Just the opposite. I think he gives in w/o a fight and gives away shit unnecessarily.
Now I probably have said he “needs to show some fight” or something along those lines. In the end, it’s like your favorite sports team, though. You lose interest after a string of losses.
Suck It Up!
I have been receiving e-mails from unemployed groups asking me to send letters to my reps in congress that they should work in a bipartisanship fashion to extend unemployment benefits and in exchange Dems should extend all the bush-era tax cuts. I don’t think that the millions of people who could use these benefits are going to give two shits about “ceding the argument” to Republicans. Your principles are not going to keep those people fed, warm and sheltered.
General Stuck
@eemom:
The inmates are loose, and all the butterfly nets have holes in them. As for me, I’m just a sucker for swan songs, maybe.
kindness
And anyway….Who else here thinks that once the Republicans get their agreement to OK tax cuts to gazillionaires that they would actually vote to extend unemployment, overturn DADT, vote for the START treaty?
Honestly, I think they would lie. They’d take their tax cuts and then turn around and renig on their ‘promise’ to pass the other stuff by finding some stupid excuse. All their excuses are stupid.
kindness
@You Don’t Say: Blue dogs. You know the ones who lost their elections. They said they wouldn’t vote for the stuff and Nancy can count.
Suck It Up!
@Jc:
the article that John Cole linked said the deal may include a 13 month extension NOT 3 months. And this week Senate Democrats, led by Max baucus, tried to pass a 1 year extension and it was killed by scott brown.
General Stuck
@Jc:
It’s a weakness of mine, sometimes human stuff causes me to go all weepy and bleedy heart. nothing much i can do about it. I won’t defend it, but i won’t apologize for it either.
General Stuck
@Suck It Up!:
facts don’t matter to the self righteous.
Brachiator
The media are finally getting it that Congressional gridlock over tax cuts is going to screw over millions of Americans in 2010 (Taxpayers face delayed refunds if tax code issues aren’t resolved)
Let me repeat: more than 21 million taxpayers will face an average tax increase of $3,900 for tax year 2010.
It amazes me that the Democrats, who have a winning hand, are looking for the first opportunity to fold.
Shawn in ShowMe
Optics only matter when we say it does. And the media narrative as constructed by the MSM would magically shift in Obama’s favor, also.
FlipYrWhig
@Suck It Up!: The principle that tax cuts are not a panacea for handling economic crisis is worth defending. Is it worth defending at the cost of people’s livelihoods? That’s difficult. And one of the things that makes liberals and Democrats liberals and Democrats is that we want to do the right thing, the thing that helps people in pain. It’s a bitch. It’s a lot easier to be a Republican and care nothing for nobody. Much easier to stand up for principle that way.
mclaren
But what if there is no longer a core difference between the parties?
What then, buckaroo?
Sure, it looks like there are differences, BIG difference between the Demos and the Repubs…and it sounds like there are difference, VERY big differences, between the Demos and the Repubs… But what if that’s just PR?
What if that’s like those old commercials where Taco Bell used to bash Del Taco for their crappy food, and Del Taco would come back with searing impudent commercials showing how much more food Del Taco gave you than Taco Bell, and how much fresher the ingredients were? Except, y’know, both Del Taco and Taco Bell happened to be owned by the same giant corporation…? So it was all a giant phony act…? A huge con job…?
Y’know?
What if that’s the story behind the Democratic party vs the Republican party?
What if America has only one political party with two right wings?
What then?
Lawnguylander
I hope the millions of terrified unemployed people out there whose benefits are expiring know that there are brave liberals so concerned with their welfare that they’re willing to see them suffer even more to prove a political point. I fear, though, that they’re too stupid to understand the eleven dimensional chess nature of the strategy recommended in blog posts like this and will probably not appreciate the long game when their eviction notices start arriving but if Obama would just effort the messaging optics into a paradigm shift they would understand why it’s all good. But he sucks so he won’t. Hopey changey.
Bullsmith
Amazingly, the Dems already won on this issue, but the White House is determined to cave anyways.
Hal
Oh please. This is just another variation of the Magic Negro ideal of black people having special powers.
I told an old co-worker of mine that I wasn’t crazy about Obama for the simple fact that I thought he would have to walk on water in order to appear even minutely competent, and maybe it’s my ol’ black persecution complex coming through, but I see shades of that expectation in so much of the criticism. Not that I’m not pissed at Obama either, but still, he isn’t magic.
Some of you need to get the fuck over Obama being a black version of whatever your white heroes are. He isn’t Black Jesus, Black JFK, Black Jimmy Carter, Black Hoover or Black ‘n Decker.
If Obama is a failure, then so be it, but how about letting him fail on his own terms, and Barack Obama, who happens to be black, instead of a failure because he isn’t the kinky haired re-incarnation of Abraham Lincoln.
Ross Hershberger
@kindness:
My thoughts exactly. You don’t even have to go back 24 hours to find an excellent example.
J
A question which sometimes occurs to me: if all the money rich people and corporations spend trying to avoid paying their fair share of tax–by funding fraudulent think tanks, buying candidates and parties and so on–were instead raised as tax and spent on useful public services–unemployment benefits, infrastructure, emergency relief for battered states and cities, health care, whatever–how far would it go?
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator:
Why is it a winning hand, though? If they don’t get something done, taxes go up, and American politics being the way they are, your higher taxes will be Democrats‘ fault. Right?
h.rumpole
It’s more than stupid. It’s fucking franks-and-beans retarded politics. The best they’ll do on unemployment is a short term extension. Every time that comes up, there will be another round of rich folks tax cuts in exchange for keeping 17% of the population from starving to death. How that solves the imagined deficit problem I have no idea.
He’s doing everything possible to lose 2012. Can anyone imagine what Bush and Rove would have done with the mandate that he squandered?
FlipYrWhig
@Bullsmith:
Here’s the problem:
1 Tax cuts for $1-$250K, not special ones beyond that.
2 Tax cuts for $1-$250K, special ones beyond that.
3 No tax cuts
Polls show that people like 1 best. Hooray! Polls probably also would show that people like 3 least, by a whopping margin. So if you can’t get 1 because you don’t have the votes, would you rather settle for 2 or 3?
A lot of you are saying 3.
I’m not sure the general public would agree.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
This is a false choice. We are not in an either/or situation.
eemom
@General Stuck:
in any event, thanks for that “riverdaughter” ref. Being unfamiliar, I googled it and found the site — holy shit.
Guess I’m naive, but I honestly did not know such people existed. They literally make Hamsher and Greenwald look like Obots.
So. I guess one must take “perspective” where one can find it these days.
Jc
We will see what the facts are in this.
But basically you are back to the mistermix analogy.
Also it will be permanent, and in a year, we would have unemployment benefits cut, while maintaining a fundamentally irresponsible revenue collection mechanism for the country, for the foreseeable future.
And that will be borne disproportionally by those a temporary extension of UI would help.
Also – just like grassley on health care, rethugs will just lie, and not pass benefits anyway.
Maude
@General Stuck:
That’s right.
Obama is in Afghanistan.
It will a fun meeting with Karzai.
The troops will be glad to see him.
Comrade Dread
@General Stuck:
You don’t have to read the future. You just have to pay attention to the present and the past.
But, you’re right, I’m sure this is simply more 11th dimensional chess that my fallible mortal mind cannot fathom.
Corner Stone
@Suck It Up!:
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. The Republicans have successfully scared the bejeezus out of people and put the onus on the Democrats. It never had to be this way, but here we are.
Ross Hershberger
I don’t think there’s any point trying to cut a deal with the GOP. On anything. They’re out for blood and only a cold, drained corpse of the Democratic party will satisfy them. It’s either win by force or be dominated by the Right. I don’t see that scenario as being in our favor, either as a party of a country.
WyldPirate
@kindness:
Perhaps. But blind allegiance to butt-fuck stupidity 24/7/365 is what brought us the modern-day Republican Party. People in the dem ranks are adopting a “dear Leader” mindset regarding Obama.
Talking to Obots is like talking to Young Earth Creationists/evolution deniers. Reason and factually-based argument doesn’t seem to phase them. At some point, you have to bring out the club of ridicule and mockery.
pattonbt
@Nick:
I think you are probably right on that. They were in a no win situation. So while I am bummed that it appears the tax cuts will not expire, I have to admit I never had much faith that they would let them expire (or be able to craft separate legislation to let the tax cuts for the rich expire and pass tax cuts for everyone else). I just couldn’t realistically see a path that worked. So while bummed and resigned, I’m not in too much a blamey, stabby mood.
I am just worried about the larger picture and I can not see how anything good gets done in the next decade (but that unfortunately a whole lot of bad does get done).
Suck It Up!
@WyldPirate:
Why do you have to attach the adjective “Black”? as if there is something worse about it because he’s Black. Its like going up to Whoopi Goldberg (just an example) and calling her a Black bitch. Why can’t she just be a bitch? nah, its extra worse because she’s Black? Where I come from those (two together) are fightin’ words. How about if I went up to Michael Moore and called him a Fat White Bastard? Or if I went up to Al Franken and called him a Jewish prick? Why the addition of words that describe their race, religion or condition? ’cause you know its more offensive and you have a prejudice towards those groups.
Why don’t you just refer to him as the Messiah or The One or just plain Jesus? You can say whatever you want, but those who are offended have the right to call you out. And if you are not going to stop, don’t complain when you get called out.
You Don't Say
@kindness: I know. But she didn’t wrangle them, did she?
My point is not to denigrate Pelosi, but to say there’s no point in thinking anyone is blameless or anyone is all to blame.
Ross Hershberger
@WyldPirate:
Okay, now you’re off the map. Unqualified generalization about the ‘dem ranks’ all adopting the same attitude. You couldn’t get the dem ranks to all agree to paddle a canoe away from a waterfall, much less what approach to take toward the White House. Reformulate and try again.
eemom
Listening to the options for today’s votes in the Senate last night I did glean the following ray of hope: it really is possible that the republicans will be SO fucking immovable on an infinite extension of the gazillionaire tax cuts that NO compromise will be accepted.
They might literally back the Democrats so far against the wall that it will function as a prosthetic for the “spine” that the poor fuckers, according to popular legend, so sadly lack — and they will have no choice but to let them all expire.
No more removed from reality than anything else I’ve seen floated here.
General Stuck
@Comrade Dread:
nice hyperbole, and no, it’s not anything other than a choice I make to first help those in need. It was my rationale for accepting a flawed HCR bill. I admit, It may be flawed politics on my part, sosume.
eemom
@Ross Hershberger:
That image. I luvs it.
pattonbt
@WyldPirate:
Oh, I get why you use it, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t call you a racist for it, but it’s juvenile and off-target – i.e. “ignorant” or “uneducated”.
Why even add the “black” adjective? Why not just Jesus or Messiah or Pony-Granter? I don’t get why you have to inject “black” into. It seems unnecessary to your attempt to mock. I don;t think people here defend Obama because he is black. They defend him because of other reasons. I defend him because I think he is about the best we can hope for (now whatever that says about the US overall political landscape can be debated). I love him on some things and am pissed on others, but I am glad to have him. But I don’t defend him for anything to do with his blackness.
Suck It Up!
@Corner Stone:
It is what it is. And when those unemployed get kicked out of their homes, or get their lights, gas turned off no amount of messaging is going to convince them that is was better to not the cede argument. I remember Dems, specifically Anthony Weiner and Obama getting slammed for letting the 9/11 bill fail because they CHOSE to require a 2/3 majority. The clip on the news showed Weiner screaming at the top of his lungs while the news anchor went on about divided government. Meanwhile we’re all here cheering him on because he called out Republicans.
Suck It Up!
@Hal:
Preach!!!!!
WyldPirate
@Suck It Up!:
First, I'm not complaining when I get called out. I simply explained why I used the term.
Second, I have used other terms though I have used the "Black" adjective a lot. I do it, in part, because so many here want to blame the criticism of Obama on bigotry from jumpstreet. That's unmitigated Al Sharpton-like chickenshit 52-racist-card pick-up game.
Thirdly, the real "Jesus" was quite likely a person of as dark or darker complexion than Obama himself. I find that amusing and ironic since most Americans have this image of a "Jesus" with fair-skinned Caucasian features depicted in Renaissance religious art. A "brown person" if you will that would likely be profiled today if some idiots had their way.
WyldPirate
@Ross Hershberger:
Good point, Ross. That was a lack of attention to detail in what I wrote. “Some Obama supporters” would have been a better choice.
kindness
@You Don’t Say: You know I agree with you. But in this era where the Democrats in Congress willing take beatings for holding popular positions….I’ll give Nancy credit for what she does do…..I mean, compare her to Senate Majority Leader Reid or honestly President Obama. She telegraphs what Democrats stand for. neither of the other two do. They telegraph defeat even when they hold the winning hand.
We here know the score because most of us have a dozen news sources and see what other people write and think. Most Americans don’t. Most Americans believe what Faux News, the MSM or NPR (Faux Lite) tell them and they all tell them that Democrats are the problem.
Brachiator
@FlipYrWhig:
No. The Democratic plan will preserve tax cuts, even tax cuts for the rich. Republican stonewalling will result in tax increases that will hit lower income Americans far harder than they will affect the wealthiest taxpayers.
It’s not about just “getting something done.”
The Republicans and the Tea Party People have loudly declared that they will bring the government to a halt if they don’t get their way.
The Democrats should call their bluff.
You get around the news cycle by calling a brief press conference, spelling out the consequences of Republican stubbornness. Let people mull it over and talk about it over the Christmas holidays, while the Republicans go on retreat with their corporate buddies.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@eemom:
If the Dems don’t stand up to them now, then when?
When you are negotiating with hostage-takers, at some point you have to be willing to lose a hostage or two. Otherwise, why bother negotiating with them at all? Just give them everything they want and call it a day. But don’t be surprised when that next phone call comes in saying that a whole ‘nother batch of hostages have just been seized.
Obama is seeking to get the best deal he can get in terms of policy right now, in terms of the specific issues on the table at this moment, but in doing so he is providing a positive incentive for the GOP to engage in ever more reckless and irresponsible behavior down the road. And looming up ahead in the coming year is the negotiation over raising the debt ceiling. Do we really want to go into that with the GOP never having lost anything as a result of being too intransigent? What will they hold hostage next?
Suck It Up!
@Bullsmith:
Excuse me! Get your facts right and tight! Obama repeatedly said he would prefer to extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not for the wealthy. Having clarified what he wanted – since so many in congress complained that the WH never tells them what Obama wants – it was now up to the House and the Senate to make the next move. What happened? Nancy couldn’t get a vote and neither could Harry Reid. Not only that but there were Democrats all over TV completely going against what Obama wanted. This is the same shit that happens over and over and over again. So when you see the WH “caving” its quite possible that its because his own party can’t f-ing agree to do the right thing.
Suck It Up!
@WyldPirate:
you’re full of shit and your excuses are lame.
Suck It Up!
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
a hostage or two or 5 million with hundreds of thousands added occasionally. but hey, who’s counting?
FlipYrWhig
@Suck It Up!:
That’s my read too. That’s why I make a distinction between the executive-power issues — where IMHO it’s safe to say that Obama does things that he has weighed and found the best course of action — and anything having to do with legislation. In the case of legislation it’s very hard to distinguish “What Obama Really Wants” from “What Obama Has To Say to Put a Happy Face on a Bad Situation Caused by Stupid Motherfuckers in His Own Party.” Some of you think that I swing too hard towards the latter. I think some of you swing too hard towards the former.
FlipYrWhig
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
And you also have to be willing to look the hostage’s family in the eye and say that the hostage died because of a bedrock and inviolable principle. And the hostage’s family might hold you responsible for that forever. You can’t just say, “Hey, pal, sometimes a hostage has to die, sucks to be you.” You can’t just say, “Well, to save the city we had to shoot down the plane, it was the right thing to do, so, trust me, grieving families, in the long run you’ll thank me.” You have to take into account that losing the hostage is a searing, awful thing. That’s why, IIRC, most of the talk about how “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” turns out to be the public face on an actual dynamic that involves a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiation.
JC
Stuck,
Not quite sure what you are saying. The last few days you’ve been saying that Obama won’t cede the tax cuts, and if he does, you’ll make a big loud eating crow scene.
Now, you are saying, you are a bleeding heart, and we have to let the rich guys win, because if they don’t, the poor lose. (heads you win, tails I lose argument).
so, it seems as if you believe that the tax cuts WILL be extended? Or are today’s comments predicated as an “If then” statement?
Because if your thinking has changed, crow time is upon you – and me, for that matter.
Brachiator
@FlipYrWhig:
While the Democrats negotiating with Republicans may be very much like negotiating with terrorists, hyperbole can go too far.
The bottom line is that the Republicans never learn. They lost more than they gained when Newt told Clinton that he would shut down the government.
The Republicans, abetted by the Tea Party people, are trying a losing tactic again.
I am astounded that the Democratic leadership don’t see that they will gain far more than they might lose by standing up to the Republicans and demanding that the Republicans give the Democrats what they want.
Ajay
John,
Dems will cave. You can count on it. In fact they dont see this as caving. Its normal and expected.
They know that even in majority they were/are not really the masters.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@FlipYrWhig:
If the Dems insist on taking political, ethical and moral responsibility for everything harmful that the GOP wants to do, we might as well fold our tent and just go ahead and have a one-party state right now. At some point the arsonist is responsible for setting fires, not the fire dept for failing to catch him. Where exactly that point falls is a subjective matter for each person to decide, as obviously we are talking about very complex value judgments here. I’m saying, for me, I think we’ve reached that point now, with this argument over the Bush tax cuts while UI extensions, START and DADT are being held hostage. And the reason why I think this is the line in the sand where we have to stop is because of the debt ceiling issue which will come up in the near future. IMHO a govt shutdown triggered by an impass over raising the debt ceiling, and the ripple effects which follow, will cause even more damage than what is at stake currently, and the GOP will have more negotiating leverage then than they do now. YMMV.
General Stuck
@JC:
Don’t believe I said that. What I said is that I don’t think they will get extended, and I stand by that. That is different than assigning Obama the cause, or not, of it happening. I have consistently said that as long as Pelosi is unwilling to cede, then Obama can do nothing about it. I have always said the obvious that Obama wants the middle class cuts left in place and would be willing to extend all of them to accomplish that, for a year or two. The article today, was something I wasn’t aware of, that Obama would do a deal, likely, to also get unemployment insurance extended. I said that was a good reason to me.
But the reason, or the main reason, I think they will expire, is GOP intransigence to compromise very little, ON ANYTHING. I suspect they would like to see all the cuts, especially the mc ones, go up under Obama’s watch, for pure political reasons. It is my firm belief, at this point, that no matter what happens, Obama will get blamed for it, somehow, for some reason. Just read this and all the other left wing blogs. The decision has been made. Obama gotta go.
But in any case, I want crow, I want to eat crow, and howl at the moon.
JC
“The decision has been made. Obama gotta go”.
Now that is just hyperbole, of course. Progressives will be rejoicing if tax rates reset themselves to Clinton levels.
It’s the fact that he might sign a law allowing the extension of those tax cuts, that has progressives – me at least – up in arms.
General Stuck
@JC:
fraid not, imho
liberal
@Brachiator:
That’s an interesting question. It looks like it could just be a replay of Gingrich/Clinton, but I don’t see why it will necessarily be so.
liberal
@kindness:
Agreed; of the three, she’s the one who’s come out looking the best the past two years. Which is why the calls for her to step down are silly.
(Exception: if she had anything to do with appting Porter Goss to the ethics office…)
FlipYrWhig
@JC:
Perhaps. I think the vast majority of non-progressives will go absolutely apeshit and the “Obama Tax Hike” will be seen very widely as both a betrayal of a campaign promise and proof of his liberal dogmatism. So the question is, would the rejoicing of progressives be more politically efficacious than the resentment of non-progressives? I have a hard time seeing it.
Brachiator
@liberal:
RE: The Republicans, abetted by the Tea Party people, are trying a losing tactic again.
It ain’t necessarily so.
But, so what?
The Democratic Party strategy (if there is any) is dumb.
And it’s real simple. I will bet good money that if Obama compromises about keeping the tax breaks for the rich portion of the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans will keep on insisting that they be made permanent. It will become a campaign issue in the 2012 elections, and it will hurt the Democrats.
On the other hand, if Obama dumped this crap now, the Republicans would be put on the defensive. They would have to respond to Obama’s economic agenda (if he ever develops one) instead of continuing to clamor for their own dumbass plans.
If Obama walked away from the Republicans, it would shock the world. And he would have nothing to lose, since the Republicans, and the part of the electorate with their heads up their asses, don’t respect him anyway and expect him to cave.
Lastly, Harry Truman dared the Republicans to push the dumbest of their dumbass plans. They took the bait. Truman kicked their asses.
The Republicans think that they have the upper hand. Apparently, some Democrats think so as well.
Too bad.
xian
@WyldPirate: you say
but what does any of that have to do with “Black”?
ah… slipped by many people and WyldStallyn’s lame excuses.
Just admit you picked up a meme from the rightards and move on.
dollared
@eemom. @ brachiator
I am 100% with Brachiator. A linguistic cue here: in Colombia, when a situation is fucked up and will never change, whether a chronically late bus or the fact that the politicians will steal money from the treasury, they tell you “Es complicado.” It means “nobody will even try to fix it anymore.”
That’s the Democratic Party. Obama really could change that, but es complicado.
pattonbt
On this subject I just think it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t thing. Sure, there are several academic positions you could put together which you would “think” would be to the benefit to the D’s (i.e. let all the tax breaks expire and just pass ones on middle and low income earners, etc.).
But that is not the world we live in. The real world isn’t going to give the D’s any good political footing whatsoever, and the R’s know it. The R’s do not have to (and never have had to) argue on policy. They argue on feeling, fear and misdirection. There is no logical argument out there that shouldn’t be in the D’s favor on this issue, but we all know, no matter what they do, they will lose politically. And unfortunately they may make bad policy because of that fear.
It sucks, but it always comes down to soundbites. The D’s want actual policy and they are willing to make the sausage to do it. But it can’t be condensed to be sold as a political win. The R’s don’t want anything beyond money and power for themselves and their clique. They want to win the issue of the day and they can make arguments which are either demonstrably false, contradictory to their position from one day ago or simply make an unrelated argument on fear/nationalism. And it will be repeated as gospel.
The fear I have had for the last couple of years is finally sinking in in that the US really didn’t learn it’s lessons from Bush The Younger and really needs to be sent over the brink before we can get reasonable governance (I never expect great governance, reasonable is good enough). Sad to say, but maybe everything has to completely fall apart first and the Bush disaster obviously wasn’t enough.
Enjoy war with Iran.
Emo rant over.
Nick
@Brachiator:
How would they put on the defensive? Taxes will go up and they’ll blame Democrats and their idiot supporters will believe them, while Democrats, whom polls show favor compromise over principals, will complain Democrats didn’t compromise and allowed taxes to go up. Why is this no obvious?
Do you people not know any history? Truman barely squeaked by to reelection, left office with a 25% approval rating and got his veto of Taft-Hartley overridden. The only ass he kicked was MacArthur’s.
joe from Lowell
I disagree.
Unemployment benefits > Letting the upper-income tax cuts expire.
I want both. If you make me pick one, I’ll pick the unemployment benefits. Nobody is going to go hungry if rich people’s taxes don’t rise next year. Nobody is going to lose their house if rich people’s taxes stay the same next year as they were last year.
I really, really want the upper income tax cuts to lapse sooner rather than later, but I’m not willing to sacrifice unemployed people to make that happen.
Priorities.
joe from Lowell
I can’t remember the last time I found myself having to explain that something I said wasn’t actually racist.
Wyld Pirate, you end up having to do that pretty much every single day.
Why do you think that is?
Here’s a thought: how about you just stop saying things related to the president’s race entirely?
Brachiator
@Nick:
RE: On the other hand, if Obama dumped this crap now, the Republicans would be put on the defensive.
It’s not obvious because it is speculation, not fact. So, people will blame the Democrats. So, they should just cave? If they compromise, people will blame them anyway, and Republicans will still bleat for making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Here’s the problem. A compromise will neither resolve the issue, nor placate Republicans. And it will give Republicans the same bad policy to campaign on in 2012. So how does this advance anything?
RE: Lastly, Harry Truman dared the Republicans to push the dumbest of their dumbass plans. They took the bait. Truman kicked their asses.
You have an odd view of “barely squeaked by.” Let’s look at history.
Truman skunked Dewey, winning 303 electoral votes to Dewey’s 189. Truman carried 28 states to Dewey’s 16, in a contest that also featured Dixiecrat challenger Strom Thurmond.
I have no idea why you bring up Truman’s approval rating, which is as meaningful as BCS style points. I also suppose that some of Truman’s low ratings were based on his pushing a Civil Rights platform, and integrating the military.
Bottom line: the Democrats took the fight to the Republicans and won. There’s an obvious lesson in there.
slag
I couldn’t agree more. Although the real point the Dems would be ceding to the Republicans is that they’re just not serious–about the middle class, about the deficit, about the social contract, about anything. They’d essentially be ceding the point that government is a joke. No other issue dealt with by the current administration has crystallized the point like these tax cuts. And that’s why they can’t give in. Period.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@pattonbt:
If 4 percent of the voters had flipped their votes from D to R in Nov 2008, we would have spent the last 2 years with Johnny Mac and Caribou Barbie in the WH. And that was with an election which happened at the same time as the collapse of the financial bubble and with W’s smirking face still on the TV to remind people who was responsible for the previous 8 years.
4 percent.
No, the lessons didn’t sink in. Not even close.
Which makes me wonder how bad things have to get before people do wise up.
Triassic Sands
Wrong. The tax cuts made the rich richer, which was the whole point. This has been at the root of American tax policy since Carter. Republicans don’t care if tax cuts help the middle class — and the American middle class will almost always jump to defend the rich (see Washington State income tax initiative for the wealthy — lost by a 2-1 margin in the state with the most regressive tax system in the country). The worst part though is that Democrats have been complicit in the grand enrichment of the wealthy, while pretending to be the party of the working class.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
General, there are “progressives” who hate the rich more than they like the poor. If they have to sacrifice the latter in order to plink the former, not only will they do it, but they’ll consider it an easy decision.
A Humble Net Lurker
I too agree that passing unemployment benefits is a higher priority than dealing with the highest tier tax cuts. I would very much love for those to go away and for Dems to attain some sort of political victory out of it. But actual people being helped > political victories. I do understand that sometimes you need political victories to stay in Washington and be able to keep helping people, but sometimes something else is more important.
Martin Gifford
OMG! John Cole is starting to get it!
Pity he and his ilk didn’t get it re: HCR.
Keep the powder dry – until it’s too late.
joe from Lowell
The prosecution rests.